Talk:Cindy (dolphin)

This page was nominated for deletion on 8 Jan 2006. See here for a record of the discussion.

This page was nominated again for deletion on 19 January 2006. See here for a record of the discussion.

This page was nominated again for deletion on 17 May 2008. See here for a record of the discussion. This deletion decision was nominated for Deletion Review on 24 May 2008. See here for a record of the review.

Old comments
Can this page be revised to include factual information only? The text as it stands reads like a fantastic Mills-and-Boon cross-species daytime TV drama. -- (aeropagitica) 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * o_O I can't believe this.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Millionaire
We don't really know if Sharon is a millionaire. Some reported that, but its not clear if she just made the claim. Nothing can be found on this woman pre-dolphin, we should be very careful about talking about Sharon outside the Dolphin story, as we don't know anything about her *realiably*. I don't trust publications that claim she is a millionair rock promoter, when such a person would likely have a web site, and would seek attention before the Dolphin thing (and be known before the dolphin). --Rob 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
According to The Age, Sharon is (at the time of the event/story/fake-wedding) 41 years old. She met the dolphin 15 years ago. Therefore she was about 26 years old. But the following is what our article says now:


 * The creature was seen by a 41-year-old British woman, Sharon Tendler, during a show. Tendler then visited Cindy for 15 years before finally having the ceremony December 28, 2005 after gaining permission from the dolphin's trainer.

This implies she was 41 years old at the time she *first* saw the Dolphin. That's false. The article is implying Sharon is about 56 years old, as it suggests the 15 years of visits came after a 41-year old visited the dolphin. --Rob 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

She was 41 when she married. [One of many articlesthat lists her as currently being 41. [[User:Englishrose|Englishrose]] 00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's clear. But the WP article (when it had the age) wasn't.  Note, you just cited the same article I already did.  --Rob 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Zoosexuality
Use of this category is implying the woman had a sexual interest in the dolphin. There is *no* evidence of this whatsover. In fact, she indicated the opposite. She doesn't live with or sleep with the dolphin. There's no indication they are left alone together. There is nothing remotely sexual. If a person as a child had play wedding with a relative, we don't classify their bio article under "incest". Use of the term zoosexuality is clearly libelous. --Rob 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Libel was not intended. The category was the most appropriate one that I could find for articles about romantic interest in animals.  The category's description clearly says, Articles related to zoophilia or zoosexuality, the emotional or sexual attraction to animals.  If that's not the appropriate category, is there another that you would recommend? Elonka 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a reminder. This article is about the dolphine *only*. Not about the person (remember we deleted that). So, unless you can verify the *dolphin* has some sort of pecular attraction to people, you can't put the dolphin in such a category. This debate would be an interesting one for the Sharon Tendler article (if it existed). But, is quite irrelevant for this article. Frankly, I think we all know this dolphine has no more "attraction" (of any type) to people than any other dolphine. Even if the Tendler fit in a different category, the dolphine doesn't. --Rob 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make one with a less specific name, such as Category:Human-animal attraction, and we could put both this article and Category:Zoosexuality inside it. Kappa 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that every member of Category:Famous cetaceans has at least one human that loves it very much. In fact, the trainer of the dolphin probably has a substantially greater emotional and physical (non-sexual of course) relationship with this dolphin that does Tendler.  Are you suggesting that all animals that are loved and cared for by people with go in this new category?  Should all people who are attracted to animals be added to.  Lots of people are attracted to animals (in a non-sexual manner of course).  Lots of people (include stars with bio articles), can't walk past certain types of animals, without coming up to them, and petting them, and admiring how "handsome" or "cute" they are.  Whether we expand the definition of zoophilia or we invent some new broader category like "Human-animal attraction", you've got essentially the same problem:  if you add Tendler to it, you would have to add countless others to it.  If you add Tendler to such a category, and you don't add every other animal lover (half the population), you're engaged in defamation, because your trying to imply something dirty.  Please don't think weasel wording gets you off the hook on this.  Either you imply its something perverted or you don't.  There is no middle ground on this.  Its like lumping together somebody who loves, hugs, and kisses their kids in a "child love" category along with pedophiles.  It doesn't fly.  --Rob 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Other people who like animals don't make the headlines for the way they express it, that's why this story is notable within its field. It's not defamation because she wouldn't deny being emotionally attracted to the animal. Kappa 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, why does this belong in this category more then other much more famous animals that are loved by regular people, or regular animals loved by famous people. Just think of all celeb interviews where somebody told the reporter how much they loved their animals.  There's entire TV programs devoted to interviewing celebrities and the pets they love.  This ain't the first animal human love story.  It just seems special, because the 15 minutes haven't elapsed yet.  --Rob 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was a program about _how much_ people love their pets, not just "celebrities and the pets they love", it would fit nicely into Category:Human-animal attraction. Kappa 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Readers are intestested in the story more than the woman or the dolphin, those readers should be able to find the article by looking in related categories. Kappa 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Readers don't look for dolphins in categories designed for people. The bio article on Tendler is deleted, and this article should not be categorized like it was a person.  --Rob 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Readers look for information in related categories, we should help them to find it. Kappa 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way of determining the appropriate categorization, is to look towards well respected researchers in the field (presumabley academics). Please cite the appropriate sources from published authors, who have commented on this specific matter in reputable publications. Indicate what they say in the article (naturally showing the full spectrum of such published opinion in an NPOV manner). Then, we can categorize it based on their expert opinion. We shouldn't pretend to be experts ourselves though. Currently, we have no published opinions from "human animal relationship" experts in the article. --Rob 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Elonka got this right. If we find a better category it can be changed, but the dolphin married a woman so it fits. -- JJay 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cite a reliable source that agrees with you, and I'll accept it. Otherwise, its a violation of WP:V.  Also, for the umpteenth time the marriage is not real in law *or* in practise.  She did the ceromony, and went back to England.  They don't live together (obviously), or have any special relations.  --Rob 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about our article- 15 years of emotional attachment + a kiss + a wedding (legal or not). -- JJay 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite an *expert* who published an opinion on this incident, that uses the term "Zoosexuality". Notice the embedded word "sexual". There's *nothing* sexual. Its libel to say there is (or imply it). If people are going to misue the category and start adding individual animals and people to Category:Zoosexuality, it will become, sadly, necessary to delete the category. You can't call somebody a derogatory term, without backing. You may cite a notable expert, who's used that term, but we're not supposed to be doing original research. Citing our own article as a source, ignores WP:RS, as it requires *external* sources, not internal ones. Surely, if this incident is notable, you'll have no problems finding such an expert source. People have been arguing that this incident is of great academic research interest to "those in the field". If so, prove it. --Rob 18:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What can I say? Changing the definition to suit your argument is rather pathetic. Your obstinacy is also rather breathtaking. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time discussing your fixation with the sexuality of this fish. However, you do a great injustice to our readers when you slander the very real emotional attachment between Cindy and her special friend. -- JJay 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Its those who are obsessed with the sexuality of the mammal (its not a fish), who are the ones that made and kept this absurd page, which disgraces Wikipedia. I didn't invent WP:V, but I like to follow it. Do not suggest I "slander" readers. That's silly. You're trying to introduce the word "sexual" to somewhere it doesn't exist. If it was up to me everybody would have avoid this whole time waster a long time ago. You seem to forget that Tendler is an actual living person, who has a right not to be defamed. In other cases, you've personally done a great job finding realiable sources, where they seemed hard to find. Now, you realize there are none (that are reliable and prove the point), but won't admit it. Lets face it no respected academic on Earth would use this case to study "human animal relations". We all knew that from the start. --Rob 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This page does great credit to wikipedia. Furthermore, I have not forgotten that Tendler is a living person. Rather than "defame" her, I celebrate her love and union with this fish with a womb. And while the extent of her intimate relationship with Cindy is certainly none of our business, it is clearly safe to say that Tendler herself recognizes and expresses feelings that fully qualify as "non-sexual zoophilia" in the sense of our category and Zoosexuality article. When Tendler metaphorically walked down the aisle with Cindy, she at once became the poster child for the "affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual". The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge Tendler's love (overtly viewing it as "absurd" and a "disgrace"), should not override the clear consensus here to categorize this article in a way that can attract further input from educated readers and other scholars of man-Delphinidae bonding. -- JJay 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! Its those who are obsessed with the sexuality of the mammal (its not a fish), who are the ones that made and kept this absurd page, which disgraces Wikipedia. Please refrain from personal attacks. Englishrose 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For a reference of how human-animal marriages qualify under the category of "zoophilia", check Answers.com "Zoophilia". Definition #1: "Affection or affinity for animals". The category is appropriate, though it might be worth proposing that the "Zoosexuality" category be renamed to "Zoophilia", since that seems to be the more general term. Elonka 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By that definition all pet owners can put in the category. In fact, since pet owners actually live with their pets (unlike Tendler who merely *visits* the dolphin), the pet owners are *more* suited to your proposed new category name.  Surely if somebody lives with an animal almost every day, year round, for the pets whole life, cares for them, nurses them when their sick, feeds them regularly, and so on, that's a more substantial sign of "Affection or affinity for animals" then visiting an animal a few times a year.  I think a ballpark figure would be about half the the Western population meets the test. --Rob 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It began with the 41-year-old Tendler walking down the dock in a white silk dress towards the water where 35-year-old Cindy was waiting. Tendler then kissed the dolphin, gave him a piece of mackerel, and whispered the words "I love you" in his blowhole, to the cheers of the spectators. Afterwards, some mackerels (instead of wedding rice) were tossed into the water, and the married couple was allowed to swim away together. ---Most pet owners don't declare their love in a public ceremony in front of spectators. -- JJay 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is are some exampes of typical pet lovers doing essentially the same thing. Note, these people actually live with their "spouses".  The only thing special about Tendler/Cindy is the story got insane press coverage, but really nothing special about their relationship existed.  Will you be making bio articles on each of these people, and their "partners", and putting them in the category as well?  --Rob 23:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on some of the quotes, those people all qualify. If they got decent press coverage then they deserve articles here too. However, I think Tendler and Cindy are special and maybe unique.    Anyone can marry their pet, but Tendler has displayed enormous devotion and commitment to express her love for Cindy. Their story is clearly an inspiration for many. -- JJay 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some more potential articles for the category: "Cow marries bull, man marries dog...".  I find it amazing anybody thought the dolphin stunt was something truly new and unique.  --Rob 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As kappa says, a new category? I've just created Category:Human-animal relationships, which I can see many notable human-animal bonds being categorized under. Let's go and find some..... FT2 (Talk) 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Zoosexuality then becomes one kind of relationship, a subcategory. And the site quoted above, marryyourpet.com, is probably a decent example of non-sexual zoophilia, or Animal love, nice one! FT2 (Talk) 10:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the new category. Should we add all famous human-animal contacts there, from Elsa the lioness to Lassie?  Or might it make more sense to link it to categories like Category:Famous dogs, Category:Famous cats, etc.?  --Elonka 15:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Theres thousands of fictional relationships. I kind of had in mind, real ones, which were notable or recognized as such. There's a thousand Lassi's, but compare that to the deep enduring bond of Jane Goodall for gorillas, its not even close. I was thinking "bonds which exemplify human-animal relationships. Thus, michael jackson is very attached to bubbles, but its not a notable relationship in the same way, its not "the notable thing" about MJ, its not "why he's famous". Elsa might be though.
 * Is anything along those lines workable? What do you reckon? FT2 (Talk) 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're trying to say, but I think we should probably come up with a clear guideline for it to put on the category (to avoid confusion in the future). I recommend we continue this discussion at Category_talk:Human-animal_relationships? --Elonka 19:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unusual articles
Added. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Death
I can't beliee this Dolphin has died, it's a tragedy...Englishrose 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Say it ain't so! A loss for dolphin lovers everywhere. --JJay 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

age
It is said, with a source, that the dolphin was about 35 yo on 2005. So, he was born circa 1970. But on the first line it is said, with no source, c. 1975. Any source? Or it should have to be arranged? --81.38.179.81 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)